Nagammal vs Inspector Of Police And Others

Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup, J

The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is the De-facto complainant in Crime No.132 of 2023 pending on the file of the Respondent. The Petitioner had filed this petition seeking direction against the Respondent to complete the investigation and file the final report.

The learned Government Advocate on instructions from the Respondent Police, submitted that the accused A1 to A3 had obtained Anticipatory Bail in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.13331 of 2023 in which the accused A1 to A3 is alleged to have handed over the 35 sovereigns of gold to the Petitioner/De-facto complainant herein and undertook to repay the amount of Rs.65,00,000/-(Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Only) and the balance of the gold sovereigns missing. Also the Hon'ble High Court while granting bail had directed the accused A1 to A3 to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakh Only) in Crime No.132 of 2023 before the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned without prejudice to his defence and also directed them to surrender within 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order in the light of the Anticipatory Bail conditions.

The Respondent Police was unable to arrest the accused. The conduct of the Respondent/Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station, Sivagangai is not proceeding with the investigation and blaming the Court that the accused were granted Anticipatory Bail is found unacceptable and objectionable. In the Anticipatory Bail, it has been clearly mentioned that within 15 days, the accused shall surrender before the learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Thiruppuvanam and to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) each, with two sureties. The photos of the accused and the sureties shall be affixed on the bail bond.

In the same order, it is clearly mentioned that if there is any violation of condition, the Investigation Officer shall approach the learned Judicial Magistrate concerned, in the light of the reported ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji Vs. State of Kerala [(2005) AIR SCW 5560]. The Anticipatory Bail was granted as per the order dated 02.01.2024. Till date (20.02.2024), the Respondent Police did not take any action either to recover the balance of the gold sovereigns and a sum of Rs.65,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty Five Lakh Only) or to cancel the warrant by approaching the learned District Munisf cum Judicial Magistrate concerned. The conduct of the Respondent Police/Inspector of Police is found unacceptable. The Superintendent of Police, Sivagangi and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Manamadurai are suo motu impleaded as a necessary parties in this case. They shall pass appropriate orders, withdrawing the investigation file from the Respondent/Inspector of Police, Thiruppuvanam Police Station. The Superintendent of Police shall nominate a Senior Officer not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police to supervise the investigation and monitor the same. Also the Superintendent of Police is directed to conduct departmental enquiry on dereliction of duty of the Respondent Police. The investigation shall be closely monitored, failing which this Court will pass appropriate orders against the Head of the District Police. They are warned accordingly. However, the case is kept pending for the appearance of the newly nominated Inspector of Police and the proceedings are expected to show progress in reasonable period of one month. The Investigation Officer shall appear before this Court to show the progress along with CD file.

Post the case on 04.03.2024.